Author: Khushwant Singh
Publication: The Deccan Herald
Date: May 10, 2003
URL: http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may10/edst.asp
The educated urban population of
India has grossly underrated Laloo Prasad Yadav as the potential leader
of the nation. They regard him as a rustic joker and buffoon. There is
lot more to him than meets the eye. He is probably the greatest orator
in Hindi we have in the country. His Bihari dialect has an earthy ring.
He is blunt and drives his points home leaving no one in doubt about what
he means. While Atal Behari Vajpayee is more sophisticated and erudite,
his speeches appeal largely to the educated city-dwellers. Besides that,
while Atalji often changes his tone to suit his audiences, Laloo is consistent
in whatever he says. Laloo may look and speak like a village oaf but he
is more trustworthy than most politicians, who tell us with brazen faces
that a lathi (stave) is a lethal weapon but a trishul is a religious emblem.
Laloo calls lathi a lathi. His speech
is best described in Haryanvi as latth maar (hard-hitting). In his own
crude manner he clarified issues facing the country. It is for his countrymen
to choose between two options: one is the legacy of Hedgewar, Savarkar
and Godse. The other is to fulfil the visions of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal
Nehru, Maulana Azad, Rajagopalachari, Jaya Prakash Narayan and others.
It is the BJP, Shiv Sena, VHP, Bajrang Dal and others of the saffron brigades
versus remnants of the Congress party, Communists, Socialists and members
of the many regional parties which, given the choice, would opt for Gandhi-Nehru
ideals and reject Hedgewar-Savarkar concept of Hindutva.
Laloo is not Prime Ministerial material.
But his role will be that of the leaders of the Opposition because he can
carry the masses with him. He won't need to wield his lathi but if he attaches
a jhaaroo to it, he could sweep his opponents into the dust-bin of history.
In the atmosphere of religious intolerance
that prevails in our country today for anyone to question the sanctity
of Gaumata (cow-mother) and proclaim that our Aryan ancestors were beef-eaters
is inviting serious trouble bordering on foolhardiness. However, D N Jhan,
professor of history at the University of Delhi, has done precisely that.
He has cited chapter and verse from the Vedas and the epics to prove that
reverence for the cows was a pre-vedic development. His citations deprived
Hindu and Sikh religious fundamentalists of today of a basic argument demanding
a total ban on cow slaughter.
In any civilised society Dr Jha's
contention would have been challenged by questioning the authenticity of
his sources. However, when his book was first published abroad, there was
demand it be banned and copies that had arrived be burned in public. A
civil court in Hyderabad has in fact pronounced in favour of a ban and
Dr Jha has received threats of death. Jha claims to belong to the topmost
echelons of the Brahmin hierarchy.
The Myth of the Holy Cow starts
with the arrival of Aryans in India. They were a pastoral people taking
their cattle from one pasture-land to another. Animal sacrifices including
those of cows to deities at auspicious occasions and for honoured guests
was a common practice throughout the Vedic period. It was only after they
settled down as farmers that they realised the wisdom of protecting cows
and buffaloes.
Most people including Gautam the
Buddha were meat-eaters (the last meal Buddha ate is said to have been
the flesh of a wild boar). A change in favour of vegetarianism came with
Jain Mahavira. Most Buddhists continued to eat animals while Jains became
strict vegetarians. Long before Muslim invasions or the advent of Christianity
in India, the vast majority of Indians including meat-eaters had become
cow-protectors.
Many Muslim ruler respected Hindu
sentiment and imposed restrictions on cow-slaughter. Namdhari Sikhs did
their best to frighten Muslim butchers by killing a few in 1870. Mahatma
Gandhi's influence made cow-protection a national agenda. He wrote: "Mother
cow is in many ways better than the mother who gave us birth. Our mother
gives us milk for a couple of years and then expects us to serve her when
we grow up. Mother cow expects from us nothing but grass and grain. Our
mother often falls ill and expects service from us. Mother cow rarely falls
ill. Our mother when she dies means expenses of burial or cremation. Mother
cow is as useful dead as when alive."
Ultimately cow-protection was incorporated
as a Principle of State policy of our Constitution. Despite the historical
background and attempts by some chief ministers and politicians to extract
political mileage by pandering to Hindu-Sikh sentiment in favour of a total
ban on cow slaughter, beef continues to be surreptitiously eaten in many
parts of India by those who relish it including Hindu tribals and the elite.
The simple moral of the tale is that you cannot make laws about what a
people should or should not eat or drink. They will be more honoured in
breach than in observance.
In a debate in Parliament an MP
shouted at a Minister: "I know on whose tune you dance to."
The minister replied, "Why are you
dragging my wife in the debate?"
(Contributed by J P Singh Kaka,
Bhopal)
